Purushottam Poudel v. Merrick Garland ( 2022 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 20 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PURUSHOTTAM POUDEL, No. 15-71756
Petitioner, Agency No. A099-446-763
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 17, 2022**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Purushottam Poudel, a native and citizen of Nepal, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen
proceedings.
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960,
964 (9th Cir. 2002). We deny the petition for review.
We previously denied Poudel’s petition for review of the agency’s decision
that he was not eligible for asylum, withholding of removal, or protection under the
Convention Against Torture. Poudel v. Holder, 592 F. App’x 555 (9th Cir. 2014)
(unpublished). We now conclude that the BIA did not abuse its discretion by
denying Poudel’s motion to reopen. As the BIA determined, Poudel did not
introduce new evidence that would likely have changed the outcome of his case,
and no exception to the filing deadline for his motion to reopen otherwise applies.
8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3); Shin v. Mukasey, 547 F.3d
1019, 1025 (9th Cir. 2008) (observing that petitioners who “seek to remand or
reopen proceedings to pursue relief bear a ‘heavy burden’ of proving that, if
proceedings were reopened, the new evidence would likely change the result in the
case” (quoting Matter of Coelho, 20 I. & N. Dec. 464, 473 (BIA 1992))).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 15-71756